LATIN AMERICA: Its giddy head (Mexico) and its restless spine

Marcos has sharply divided WAISers. Detractors and admirers have used unWAIS terms in
expressing themselves. It is clear that he has more admirers among Latin Americans than among
Americans. I have selected this message from Miles Seeley, who expresses the prevailing
American view in temperate terms:

"I admire Linda's humanitarianism more than I can say. My problem is with those who seek power
by violent revolution. It seems to me that history shows all too clearly that when the "idealists"
gain power, they almost all become no better than those they overthrew. Does power corrupt, and
does absolute power corrupt absolutely? No doubt the achievements of Castro's regime in the
educational and medical fields deserve recognition, but his democratic ideals, even if initially
genuine, soon gave way to autocratic rule. I know little of Marcos and his band, but I would happily
take bets on what they would be like if they had power. We cannot forget the USSR or China or
Sadaam and the Baath Party...and on and on. Sorry I cannot believe as Linda does. My experience
has left me all too cynical. "

The contrast between the US and Latin American assessment was clear when an Univisión reporter
from Miami interviewed a Mexican intellectual, Luis González Souza, who is as white as Fox of
Marcos. To questions implying condemnation of Marcos, he answered with a strong defense of
him. Fox chose a meeting of Mexican businessmen to stress that he was prepared to discuss all
issues with Marcos, whom he invited to the presidential residence, Los Pinos. Marcos replied that
he would not meet with him until his conditions were met. Of the seven army bases in the Chiapas
territory where the EZLN operates, Fox had agreed to withdraw the troops from four. Marcos
demanded that they be withdrawn from the remaining three. This would give him a territory of his
own, somewhat like that of the FARC in Colombia. Marcos said his troops would remain in Mexico
City until pro-Indian legislation was passed. Answering the comment that this would take at least
three years, González Souza did not regard that as a problem; the EZLN would transform itself into
a political party. Fox would in principle approve such legislation, but González Souza did not face the
possibility that the talks might fail. What then?

Students were a problem. Televisa usually runs a seminar for a large number of students wishing to
enter the TV profession. This year it was decided to hold the seminar in Toluca, away from Mexico
City. Fox enjoys strong backing from the American business community. He will address in Los
Angeles later this month, tickets quickly sold out. Mexican attitude toward the US and US business
was mixed. American students on the spring break did not help. They reportedly acted like spoiled
unprincipled brats in places like Matamoros, just across the border from Texas. Jaqui White lives
near there, so I ask her to report what she knows.

Americans do not distinguish between "bandits" like Pancho Villa and Zapata, but Mexicans do.
While some striking students at Mexico City's UNAM started a Villista Front, which came to
nothing, Marcos mentioned only the more educated Emiliano Zapata (1879?-1919). He joined the
revolt of Francisco Madero against Porfirio Díaz, but then, viewing US style democracy as
inadequate, accused Madero of betraying the revolution, and he demanded radical agrarian reform
in the 1911 Plan of Ayala. Marcos implied that he likewise would reject reforms proposed by Fox.

A recent posting pointed out that there is unrest all the way down the spine of Latin America. The
relationship between the movements was shown yesterday when Mapuche leaders in southern Chile
referred to Chiapas. The most dangerous situation is in Colombia, where 27 foreign representatives
accompanied Fox to the jungle for talks with FARC leaders. We know little about the background of
Marcos, and I know nothing about that of the FARC leader, Manuel Marulanda. alias Tiro Fijo.
Interviewed by foreign journalists, he seemed to me unscrupulous. What about the innocent
civilians killed or kidnapped, whose relatives had appealed to the foreign envoys for help? Too bad
that they got caught in the fight between government troops and the FARC. What about the
financing of the FARC by the drug traffic? All lies. (How could he say that when television has
shown drug- making laboratories controlled by the FARC?). The meeting with the envoys led to the
creation of a commission of seven of them, including Cuba, to continue negotiating. What about the
US? It could join the commission if it agreed to his conditions. How would the press fare under his
system? There would be freedom of the press. (Tell that to the World Press Report!)

The revolutionary movement in other countries avoided mentioning the FARC. In sum, the
response of Latin Americans to Castro and Marcos seemed to be a qualified yes, but a loud no to
Tiro Fijo.